A True Barf Blog

The first thing that caught my attention about Barfblog was, of course, its’ name.  Although it put unpleasant pictures in my mind, I actually appreciated the theme once I arrived at the site.  The color scheme goes along with the whole theme, which is pretty creative, in a weird way.  Navigating through the site is quite painless; the layout is very simple and organized.  A straightforward web design is on the top of my list of criteria for a good blog site.  Furthermore, the site is not cluttered with advertisements which is refreshing for a modern day website.  I’ll give the site an A in design. 

Next on that list would be the blogs connections to my life and how I can relate to the opinions being shared.  The first blog I read was about a soccer match that I was actually watching live, so I was originally very impressed with the site.  When I read a few more, I had the realization that most of the blogs were actually uninteresting and even tiresome.  Foe example, I read one about Anzac day, a grim holiday that commemorates the battle of Gallipoli, which apparently was a colossal failure.  This blog would be interesting to a 70-year-old Australian man; however, I do not fall under that category.  The blog’s main purpose is supposedly “to offer evidence-based opinions on current safety issues.”  However, reading these blogs, I didn’t notice a lot of evidence to back up their positions.  While these issues might be very important to a large group, I do not have particular interest in them.  I don’t really want to read blogs about Hepatitis A or how to wash your hands properly.  Minus points in my book. 

My list of criteria continues; blogs must not be too long or they will lose my attention.  While some of the blogs on Barfblog are relatively long, I noticed that the majority of them are pretty short.  I like to see this in blogs because I appreciate writers getting straight to the point, instead of rambling on while beating around the bush. 

As for my final analysis of Barfblog, it appears that the site’s format is exactly what I’m looking for in blogs. The easy-to-navigate design, the color scheme, the lack of ads, and the lengths of the blogs all contribute to my affection for this site.  However, the topics being unrelated to my personal interests makes it hard for me to spend time reading these blogs.  In conclusion, the my lack of interest in the subjects surpass my liking for its design.  I acknowledge that to some, this blog may be perfect as it covers all the issues they care most about.  But this is simply my personal evaluation.

Rhetorical Analysis: Supreme Court

Mr. Clement: Just to clarify, Justice Sotomayor, I'm not suggesting that the Federal Government has any special authority to recognize traditional marriage. So if -- the assumption is that nobody can do it. If the States can't do it either, then the Federal Government can't do it. So the Federal Government –“
MS. KAPLAN: To flip the language of the House Report, Mr. Chief Justice, I think it comes from a moral understanding today that gay people are no
different, and that gay married couples' relationships are not significantly different from the relationships of straight married people. I don't think -­
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I understand that…”

Standing up before the Supreme Court to argue a controversial issue like same sex marriage could be daunting to any average man.  It takes courage for Mr. Clement to make a case against the chief justice, and eight associate justices of the United States.  However, Mr. Clement hangs in there, while being interrupted by the chief justice.  Although Mr. Clement is particularly polite, his tone does not affect his negative treatment from the opposition and the Supreme Court. 

In this short excerpt, Clement’s claim is that the Federal Government does not have the authority to define traditional marriage if the states don’t have the authority either.  It is hard to determine his tone in his words, but it seems that his tone is calm and polite.  In his situation, it is crucial to be polite while in the company of the Supreme Court.  This is a useful tool in appealing to the audience.  Not only is his audience the Supreme Court members, but he is also speaking to the court viewers, and all the people that are watching the broadcast of the case.  Furthermore, since this issue is so relevant in contemporary politics, this particular Supreme Court will have a significant audience.  Since the issue of same sex marriage is so controversial, Clement must maintain a neutral tone, or else he will face the consequences of angry petitioners. 

While Clement is making his point, Ms. Kaplan abruptly interrupts him.  This behavior is demeaning towards Clement, perhaps undeserved.  However, Ms. Kaplan interprets Clements claim, offering her explanation.  She brings in “moral understanding” to the equation.  With this, Kaplan is using pathos to appeal to the audience.  Her claim is that gay married couples are no different than straight married couples.   Before she could finish her sentence and offer evidence to back up her statement, Chief Justice Roberts interrupted her.  This is an example of how they received impolite treatment from the Supreme Court, regardless of their manners. 

The use of diction also plays an important role in the effective language used by Clement and Kaplan.  For example, the use of the word “special” referring to the government authority makes the audience realize the unequal powers that the government has.  The use of “traditional” in context is a useful word to make marriage seem like a regular aspect of our culture, and that all people should be able to have the same right to tradition.  Kaplan’s use of “moral understanding” is a powerful form of diction as well.  Every person wants to be ethical and proper, so the use of this word makes the audience want to accomplish “moral understanding.” 

Reading the dialect of the Supreme Court cases are filled with rhetorical devices and appeals, and for a good reason.  They intend to use their language effectively, with the goal of convincing and persuading the audience.  Tools like diction and tone are useful in shaping your argument in a way that can directly make the audience feel your words.  It’s impressive to me that these professionals are able to use language in such an effective way.